Well, in a perfect world, because the clause would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
I have no opinion on the actual legality of it.
I have no opinion on the actual legality of it.
If I set up a server to respond to only the people I choose, what restrictions can I make on it in your perfect world?
Do you really believe that?
The web is open. If you put your a chair out in a public square with a sign on that back that says, "Only paying members can sit." don't be surprised when someone random sits in it.
A better analogy would putting your chair in a private room with a locked door and sign on the door that says ask management for access to the chair. Anyone who breaks in to use that chair definitely knows they aren't supposed to be there.
> The Lyft API is authenticated
In other words, the door was locked and you gave the key to a guy, who then peed on the carpet. While that was impolite, he was definitely not guilty of breaking and entering.
Also did Lyft know they were giving the key to Uber? If someone impersonates your dog sitter to get the key to your house, they still did not have permission to enter your house so it's still breaking and entering.
The lengths people will go to justify Uber is amazing.
If I provide information to my customers, I have to provide the same information directly to my competitor? Why does that make the world better?
In this particular case, it makes the world better by recognizing that "prohibiting competition" is not a worthwhile goal for the state to promote. We recently had another spurt of articles praising California's policy of not enforcing noncompetes as to employees. Why are noncompetes for customers a better idea?
That's called mens rea and it's how, for example, various types of murder and accidental death are distinguished. It's kind of a core element of western jurisprudence...